Ah, yes. The good old "historic documents" dodge.
The Casper Star-Tribune: Plaza chosen as Ten Commandments monument solution: The City Council decided Tuesday to move a controversial Ten Commandments monument out of a park and into a plaza that will honor a variety of historic documents. The 5-4 vote followed a unanimous rejection of an offer by the Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., to place his own monument in the park. Phelps has been calling for a monument declaring that Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student who was murdered in October, 1998, went to hell because of his sexual orientation. Shepard's murder sparked a nationwide outcry for hate-crimes legislation. [...] Those who voted for the monument plaza plan included Mayor Barb Peryam, who said that is where the Ten Commandments monument belongs. ''And for those outsiders who think they can run our city, I say, 'Thank you, thank you very, very much.' Because, you know what, if you think that we are going to put our monument someplace in cold storage, I've got another thought for you. We are going to put it where it will be more noticed, more taken advantage of and used for learning purposes by all families,'' she said. ''If we are going to be taken to court for this action, then so be it,'' she added. ''Bring it on, because this is a battle I firmly believe we can win.''
Had the mayor kept her big mouth shut, it might, at the least, have had a slightly better chance, depending on what the record of the debate over this issue says. However, with that comment, it's going to be brutally clear to any court that the intent of the city of Casper was to do an endrun around the intent of the court's ruling; most judges seem to take a dim view of that sort of thing. Which, to be sure, isn't to say that Casper might not just get away with it.
Casper Star-Tribune: Casper ponders 'historic plaza': Two years ago, the city of Grand Junction, Colo., devised a plan that solved a dilemma involving a Ten Commandments monument on public property. Because the plan worked so well, the city of Casper is now considering a similar scheme in order to solve its own Ten Commandments dilemma. [...] To play up the historic and secular value of the Ten Commandments, the Grand Junction City Council changed the context in which the city displayed the monolith by placing five other monuments -- each dedicated to a document of great importance to America's legal history -- around the Decalogue, Wilson said. The council called this display "Cornerstones of Law and Liberty." Along with the Ten Commandments, monuments were placed honoring the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, the Mayflower Compact, the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta. However, even with this change, the ACLU went ahead with its lawsuit against Grand Junction, Wilson said. When the case was decided in federal court, U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel of Denver ruled that a reasonable person would find that Grand Junction displayed its Ten Commandments in a manner that was historic, secular, and therefore constitutional, Wilson said. "The federal court agreed with us and the ACLU went away," Wilson said. "They did not appeal, and I took that as meaning they thought that they did not think they were going to win." Erecting the five additional monuments cost $50,000, Wilson said.
Actually, I think that most reasonable people would assume that Grand Junction did an endrun around the intent of the ruling to do what they wanted to do anyway and promote an illegal establishment of religion. Judge Wiley Daniel of Denver was quite quite full of it, going along like that. The Ten Commandments are not logically related to any of those documents, almost every single one of which is concerned with promoting the power of the individual over that of the state, or at least of limiting the power of the state or monarch. The historical value of the Commandments in that display is tangential, at best. However, for the time being, such displays are legal, so that's probably the way Casper will go, and they're likely to get away with it. They'll almost certainly have monuments to the same documents -- Grand Junction has established a pattern, after all.
Of course, as that article notes, the problem isn't that the Ten Commandments are or are not historical documents. The problem is that (1) Grand Junction's case predates Summum vs the City of Ogden (2002), which now controls, and (2) the problem is the specifically religious content of the Commandments, and the fact that religious speech is protected speech. (The issue at hand is actually a pure "freedom of speech" issue; the establishment clause was not argued in the Summum appeal, which pissed off the appeals court something fierce.) In fact, the appeals court specifically rejected the "historic relevance" argument as regards Ogden's monument; I can't imagine that Casper's will do any better in the same circuit court of appeals. Casper may well be allowed to stick the Commandments in their little historical plaza, but according to the decision, they'll also be required to allow other less popular religious viewpoints to be displayed as well, because the city is not allowed to distinguish between approved and unapproved forms of allowable speech in public forums. Which means, by refusing to simply remove the monument from public property, they have handed Phelps a beautiful, golden case which they almost certainly cannot win.
Idiots.
But, my, the results of this ill-considered decision are likely to be entertaining (to everyone but the Casper city council) for years to come!
Posted by iain at October 29, 2003 01:06 AM
